Self-Determination Theory in Modern-Day Business

Over time, it has been found out that man needs to be motivated in a way or the other so as to ensure that they remain focused on achieving their end goals. Businesses, being primary creators of employment today, have been at the forefront to seek better ways of ensuring that workers are motivated to work and realize optimal productivity. The accomplishment of this has been through a number of ways, which include the raising of salaries, the giving of awards, issuing of work insurance plans, and the involvement of workers. As a result of finding the relevance of maintaining motivation in the world today, a number of theories have been developed that have helped top management firms come up with proper strategies of maintaining a motivated workforce (Lange, Kruglanski, & Higgins, 2011). One of the most traditional theories of motivation is Maslow's Theory of Motivation which was developed by Abraham Maslow. Less applied in business context today is the self-determination theory which also has very influential sentiments in matters motivation (Fowler, 2014). This paper looks at the background of this theory, its advantages and disadvantages, criticisms, and counter-criticisms, all which are aimed at identifying how viable it is in the modern day business engagement. 

Background of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 

In its context, the theory of self-determination is described as one which seeks to underline the basics of human motivation and the personality of a person. Its development started in the 1970s when a lot of attention was being given to the finding of both intrinsic and extrinsic motives in a person’s realization of success (Gagne & Deci, 2014). However, for the better part of the decade, not much attention was given to this theory as it was viewed as not being substantial enough. In the following years, theorists who believed in the workability of the SDT theory kept working hard to prove its viability. Much of their efforts seemed futile until the mid-1980s when the theory was finally taken up as a theory with a substantial ground of argument. 

With the initial acceptance of the theory, the 2000s saw intensive studies being conducted in regards to social psychology (Gagne & Deci, 2014). Psychologists were aiming at identifying how there was a correlation between the various aspects that it outlined to the thinking of a human and how this influenced motivation. In most instances, the studies conducted indicated that indeed there was a connection between the two. This was yet another stepping stone to the success of the theory. 

Despite having undergone all this record success in the prior years, the SDT theory became further developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan (Tran, 2017). These two theorists devoted a lot of their time in developing this theory and are as well responsible for most of its developments. They furthered research on SDT and then came up with more detailed elaborations and explanations of what the theory really entailed. For instance, the two psychologists provided a defining line where they highlighted the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how each played out in the life of a human. Further, they also highlighted the significant intrinsic needs that play a crucial role in a person's self-determination. As they explain in their book, Deci, and Ryan state that the intrinsic needs, which are three in number (competence, autonomy, and psychological relatedness), are the key motivation behind how one behaves and how they maintain their well-being both psychologically and physically (Broek et al., 2016). It is these three factors that influence how productive one becomes as a worker and the levels of success they achieve in their professionalism. 

Intrinsic motivation is described as the act of an individual engaging in an activity because of the satisfaction that is inherent with the engagement contrary to the expected materialistic consequence of the same (Deci, 2012). In other words, the aspect of intrinsic motivation comes about when an individual is highly motivated to do something, not because it pays well or brings about other gains to them, but because it is what they love doing. A good example of this is an artist. Most artists have a connection to painting. Artists engage in the activity, not primarily because they may make a profit from the work of their hands, but because they enjoy doing what they do. They can thus be described as intrinsically motivated professionals. The major idea that the principle of intrinsic motivation works with is that everyone has that one thing they so much love doing, and it is their love for it that keeps them going (Deci & Ryan, 2013). 

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to the motivation that comes about as a result of a separable outcome that is involved in an individual’s engagement in a particular activity (Deci & Ryan, 2013). This forms the underlying difference between the two. Whereas their love moves intrinsically motivated individuals for what they do, extrinsically motivated ones are driven by the secondary gains. Extrinsic motivation is primarily external and is mostly received from the actions that others take and how they benefit one for something they have done (Ryan, Williams, Patrick, & Deci, 2009). For example, two people could be up for exercise each day which they do by running. However, one of the two could be overweight motivated by the fact that they want to lose weight and the other could be motivated because they revel in some freedom when running. This shows the difference between the two motivation concepts. 

The three most important intrinsic needs as stated by Deci & Ryan are autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Niemiec, & Ryan, 2009). Autonomy focuses on the need of a person to be able to engage in an activity, say work, and do it successfully without being influenced by other external factors. It is largely an aspect of self-rule where an individual can coordinate themselves and make relevant decisions that affect their future. An individual always has the need to ensure that any activity they engage in is self-initiated and its success is predominantly as a result of the devotion they put on the same (Ryan, Patrick, Deci, & Williams, 2008). On the other hand, competence is the need to have control over the desired outcome out of the engagement in a particular activity. Every person has the need to maintain an added advantage over other people with the same skill. The world today is a very competitive place as people have sought education and relevant skill in the job market. 

Nevertheless, humans have a need to want to be different from the rest. It is as a result of this need that competence, which can be described as a person’s ability to engage in something successfully, is developed. Lastly, relatedness is the aspect that advocates for the universal need to interact, connect with others, and portray care for other individuals. Time and again, everyone has felt the urge to good to others or rather be a part of other people’s life. People who lead extremely social lives are said to be the happiest while those that stay secluded from the rest of the world have a not so worthwhile life. However, the impact of this need to motivation is considered less significant as compared to that of autonomy and competence (Ryan, Veronika, & Deci, 2013). 

Advantages of the SDT Theory 

One of the major benefits of this theory is that it highlights the most important aspect of not viewing motivation as a unitary concept (Johan et al., 2012). In most theories, motivation has been expressed as a uniform entity. However, with the SDT theory, this notion changes drastically. It solely focuses on what specifically motivates an individual at any given time. As a result of this, a business looking forward to establishing motivational programs can find the best possible ways to keep their employees motivated. Some organizations have initiated motivational programs aimed at boosting worker productivity, but some of these have failed tremendously and cost them a fortune. At times, a motivational program could be the best but could not be suitable at the time it is put in place. It is, therefore, imperative for the management bodies to ensure that whatever kind of programs they put in place are the best fit at the time of application. This can be effectively done if this theory is undertaken seriously and applied. 

Again also, with this theory, business organizations have an advantage of realizing increased productivity which eventually implies profits for them (McCarthy, 2012). As it has always been argued in previously conducted research, a motivated worker is a productive worker and vice versa. What this means is that if a company needs to get the best of results, it has put its sole focus on having a productive workforce. However, a productive workforce does not just make itself. It calls for investment in aspects involving time and other resources. Moreover, organizations that have established concrete motivational programs have recorded success over the years. Take for instance a company where a worker is given freedom of work, that is, they can work within their own time frames provided they beat deadlines and present quality work. Such workers are always primarily motivated, and the kind of work they deliver is always promising. This is the spirit of autonomy. A good example of a business entity that has successfully implemented the aspect of worker motivation through the offering of autonomy is Facebook. The company has one of the most vibrant workforces in the world today, a factor that has made them become one of the biggest worlds today. 

The theory also points out on the importance of employee involvement and the maintenance of consistent interaction between them and the management as well as their fellow employees (Sexton, 2013). A major factor derailing development in modern business today is the isolation of workers. Since the era of departmentalizing the workplace took over the business world, there has been a lot of division being experienced in many organizations. Individuals working in the high-end departments tend to overlook those in departments under them. This cuts off the interactive aspect of motivation which as Deci and Ryan explain is very crucial for the successful running of modern day business. As it was earlier on mentioned, the need for psychological relatedness is an essential aspect of motivation. The failure to even involve workers in business matters within the organization is enough to make a worker less productive. The need to interact and be a part of something greater is not realized and this suppresses them. 

Also, with this theory, the rate of employee attendance to work is also increased (Self-determination theory, n.d.). Most of the top management firms have cited that one of the biggest problems they face in modern day worker management is their work attendance. Some employees report to work late, and others keep asking for sick-offs, most of which are not legit. Most of these occurrences come about as a result of unsatisfied needs of the employees that are entirely unrecognized by the top management. If they are to use the SDT theory, they can be able to alleviate such occurrences. A worker who finds motivation at work is always looking forward to the next day of work and does not take it as a burden. This happens mostly if the three needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness are duly satisfied. 

Disadvantages of the SDT theory 

One of the biggest problems of the SDT theory is that it focuses more on telling people to be intrinsically motivated without showing how. Since its inception in the 1980s, the theory has primarily presented grounds on how these needs are essential to a human being, most of which is not questionable by now. However, with all this knowledge minus a way to get there, the theory is as vague as it gets. There is no point in knowing that satisfying a particular need will result in motivation without knowing how to go about it in the first place. Even in their development of the theory, Deci and Ryan failed to outline how this needs can be efficiently satisfied and only provided more theory to what was already known. 

Another disadvantage of the theory is that whereas it advocates for the offering of autonomy to clients, it in the first place takes it away from them. The fact that workers need to be monitored may result to people or rather employees who have a very minute or no intrinsic motivation. The reason for this is because they know that whatever they do is going to be evaluated by how well they perform in it. It has always been a common problem with the man. If one realizes that they are being monitored, they tend to lose that autonomy environment which they crave for while at work. They are no longer able to control the outcomes of anything. This could at times result to a demotivated employee who ends up being less productive and not offering the expected results. In other words, the sense of self-determination in individuals who realize that they are observed or controlled is quite small. 

Further, there is also a huge risk involved in the application of the theory. If workers are left to do things their way, it is not entirely guaranteed that they will give the best results or even operate at the best of their performances. Today, the work environment is filled with many distractors with the Internet being at the forefront. It is straightforward to find a worker who lost concentration of work and directed their focus to the social media or any other web platforms. When such happens, the worker tends to be disrupted from work, and it could eventually lead to them not attaining their goals as the management expects it. It could result in unmet deadlines, and low quality of work presented. This shows the downside of autonomy at the workplace. It could be a viable strategy for one too many workers, but for some, it could be the reason why company goals are never achieved. Needless to say, every employee plays a crucial role in the future productivity of the firm they work at. This means that if they are not doing what is expected of them, there is a high probability of the inactivity affecting the business primarily or minutely. 

The aspect of the integration of workers in the day to day company activities could also be a good move, but again, it has its downfalls. One of them is that it could stifle or slow down productivity. This mainly happens when workers are involved in decision making. There comes a time when fast decisions need to be made in the company. This implies that a delay in the decision-making process could result in very gross negative implications for the organization. However, in the quest to satisfying the need of psychological relatedness, a company may have sought to engage their employees by making them decision makers. This means that for every business decision made, they are involved actively and have to give their opinion. Imagining a company with over 200 workers, all of who are considered central in decision making, a lot of time will be wasted in the case where an emergency arises as each have to be consulted. This only affects the productivity of the entire company in the long run. It is why some companies still work with a reduced decision-making group of individuals. 

Criticisms of the Theory 

Just like most of the other developed models, the SDT theory has not gone without criticism from various quarters. One of the most profound criticisms raised in regard to the theory is that it only focuses on three intrinsic needs of a human that result to motivation. As most behaviorists and psychologists have argued, the fact that the theoretical limits itself to only three requirements makes it inconclusive especially on its own. The basis of their argument is that whereas the three might be relevant and valid, other needs would have been incorporated into the theory and helped in further providing much ground. A real instance given is the Abraham Maslow's theory of motivation which encompasses five human needs that are also critical to obtaining motivation. In essence, this could be the reason why the Maslow's theory of human motivation is the most popular and most referred to theory in the modern world. 

Another criticism that has been raised in regard to the same is that it is only workable to certain specific work environments (Roman & Davids, 2016). For instance, it has been proven to work in organizations that involve volunteer labor and non-profit organizations. Such organizations are highly altruistic and thus very well-suited for the application of this theory. When one is working as a volunteer, they can work within their time frame and engage in activities in their way. This is because it is entirely voluntary. It is also workable for non-profit organizations because the success or failure of an employee is not directly proportional to the productivity of that organization since it is not profit oriented. For companies that are profit-driven, the using of this strategy could be very dangerous. This is because there are times when quick decisions will require to be made. Workers in such organizations are also expected to deliver on their duties in due course, a factor that affects how productive the company is. As a result, the use and application of this theory in such an environment prove not be worthwhile. 

Also, many individuals have argued that the theory’s focus on intrinsic motivation while excluding extrinsic motivation makes it bias in nature (Patrick & Williams, 2012). It is a common feeling that people in the modern day derive more motivation extrinsically than intrinsically to engage in some events. People do not just engage in activities anymore because they enjoy them. It is all about secondary gains today. In almost every activity a man is engaging in today, the first thing that they want to know is what is in it for them. In most cases, this is in terms of monetary benefits or other favors that may arise as a result of engagement in the same activity. As a result, the theory seems to be losing track as the years go by given that the trend is probably going to keep going in the same direction. The claim has, therefore, been that at a time when intrinsic motivation is slowly losing ground, extrinsic motivation is gaining much ground and as a result, the theory is becoming irrelevant. 

Counter Criticisms 

However, despite all these criticisms Deci & Ryan have stayed focussed on proving to the behaviorists, who form most of the criticisms that the SDT theory is correct and is very applicable to modern work environments (Ryan& Deci, 2014). First and foremost, the two have primarily focused on showing why the three intrinsic needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) are the primary human needs of motivation. As they have explained, it is not like there are no other requirements that are instrumental to realizing motivation of an individual. However, they quickly stated that when it comes to the determination of oneself, the three are the most influential and thus the most essential to be satisfied (Ryan& Deci, 2014). Moreover, Deci & Ryan also said that the three psychological needs encompass all other needs that arise. In emphasis, they explain that this theory is primarily based on the mental part of the human being and how it plays out in regard to offering the motivation which is much hunted down for. 

As for the issue revolving around its unfitness in some work environments, Deci & Ryan have stood firmly by their belief that it can work in any environment regardless of its mode of operations. Psychology applies in every situation. It does not matter whether one works as a volunteer or as an employee in a profit organization. As the two theorists say, both work environments have a psychology which slightly differs from the other (Ryan & Deci, 2010). However, the key thing is that psychology is present. What this implies is that since psychology forms the basis of the theory, the fact that it is present in both cases means that the theory can be manipulated to fit into both. For instance, in an organization that is intended for profit, the management can take up the theory and focus on the areas that can provide the best possible solutions to their motivation problems then modify them to suit their needs. A good example is a company can involve their employees actively in decision making. However, in the event where quick decisions need to be made, they can limit the number of staff who are liable for the making of the decision by having a carefully selected team of supreme decision makers. 

In light of the issue involving the SDT’s loss of relevance in the society today, Deci & Ryan argue that intrinsic motivation still plays a very significant role (Ryan& Deci, 2017). As they explain, working out of extrinsic motives does not last too long. There comes a time when one does not feel satisfied doing what they do or rather does not find the kind of fulfillment that they seek from their work. At such times, they start underperforming, and the result of this is a less productive worker. As a matter of fact, the only way to having an employee who is motivated out of the right reasons is by intrinsically motivating them: finding out what they love doing and giving them the chance to engage in it without external influence. This way, one will never reach a point where they feel as if they are not happy with their work because it is what they love doing. The only way for them to be unhappy is if they are restricted to engage in work which they do not enjoy doing. However, from time to time, it is also advisable to apply extrinsic motivation. This can be done through the giving of rewards and any other forms of appreciation. 

In essence, what motivates a person is not the secondary gains they obtain from doing something. Real and authentic motivation originates when someone does something that they are appreciated for and receive positive feedback on. This makes them satisfy their need for competence as they start having a feeling of completion. Competence transitions into the need to belong. Other than having a positive feedback from other people, one always has the need to connect with them at a personal level. Imagine an individual who does their work because they are only interested in the pay they receive at the end of the day, week, or month and has no external connections. At some point, such a person ends up in turmoil. This is because they lack intrinsic motivation which is very fundamental for one even to realize the benefits of extrinsic motivation. 

Conclusion 

As it has been seen from the previous discussions on the SDT theory, it can be seen that it indeed has a foundational basis on which motivation can be founded on. The aspect of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is one of the concrete areas that is not understood by most professionals today. One of the reasons why motivational programs have failed in the past is the failure of the concerned parties to recognize what kind of motivation works for particular employees. Some offer extrinsic motivation to an employee whose principal powerhouse in terms of motivation is intrinsic in nature. In such a case, the strategy used could work but just for a while. However, by understanding what motivation really entails, the best strategies can be put in place. 

Significantly, understanding the concept that everyone has something that they love doing is the first step to realizing an entirely motivated and productive workforce. This is the same case for all workers in any organization. Employees think that one particular thing which they can do best in the organization without being forced by anyone to engage in. By finding out what this is, a company can record tremendous success in its quest to having a workforce that is all round and productive to its optimal levels. This step should then be followed by the satisfaction of the psychological needs of an individual in regards to the Deci & Ryan’s theory. 

References 

Broek, A. V. et al. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42 (5), 1195-1229. 

Deci, E. (2012). Intrinsic Motivation . Berlin, Germany: Springer. 

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . Berlin, Germany: Springer. 

Fowler, S. (2014). What Maslow’s hierarchy won’t tell you about motivation. Harvard Business Review . Retrieved on 12 July 2017 from https://hbr.org/2014/11/what-maslows-hierarchy-wont-tell-you-about-motivation. 

Gagne, M., & Deci, E. (2014). The history of self-determination theory in psychology and management. The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory , DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.006. 

Johan, Y., et al. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7(4), 325-340. 

Lange, P. A., Kruglanski, A., & Higgins, E. (2011). Handbook of theories of social psychology . Newcastle, UK: SAGE. 

McCarthy, J. (2012). Stop trying to motivate your employees (self-determination theory at work). Retrieved on 2 July 2017 http://psychologyofwellbeing.com/201205/stop-trying-to-motivate-your-employees-self-determination-theory-at-work.html. 

Niemiec, C., & Ryan, R. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education , 7(2), 133-144. 

Patrick, H., & Williams, G. (2012). Self-determination theory: its application to health behavior and complementarity with motivational interviewing. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9 (18), DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-9-18. 

Roman, N. V., & Davids, E. L. (2016). Self-determination theory . Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2010). Self-determination. Corsini Encyclopaedia of Psychology . DOI: 10. 1002/9780470479216.corpsy0834. 

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2014). Self-determination theory. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research , 5755-5760. 

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 

Ryan, R., Patrick, H., Deci, L., & Williams, G. (2008). Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: Interventions based on self-determination theory. The European Health Psychologist, 10 , 2-5. 

Ryan, R., Veronika, H., & Deci, E. (2013). Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on Eudaimonia. The Exploration of Happiness , 117-139. 

Ryan, R., Williams, G., Patrick, H., & Deci, E. (2009). Self-determination theory and physical activity: the dynamics of motivation in development and wellness. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 6 , 107-124. 

Self-determination theory. (n.d.). Self-Determination Theory . Retrieved on 12 July 2017 from http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/theory/. 

Sexton, J. (2013). The application of self-determination theory to employee motivation in Irish workplaces. DBS eSource . Retrieved on 12 July 2017 from http://esource.dbs.ie/handle/10788/1618. 

Tran, N. (2017). What is self-determination theory? Positive Psychology Program . Retrieved on 12 July 2017 from https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/self-determination-theory/.